"monarchy unaccountable, is the worst fort of tyranny; and leaft of all to be endured by freeborn men". And furely no christian prince, not drunk with high mind, and prouder than thofe pagan Cæfars that deified themfelves, would arrogate fo unreasonably above human condition, or derogate fo bafely from a whole nation of men his brethren, as if for him only fubfifting, and to ferve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute will and pleasure no more than fo many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reafoned with, but to be trod on; among whom there might be found fo many thousand men for wifdom, virtue, noblenefs of mind, and all other refpects but the fortune of his dignity, far above him. Yet fome would perfuade us that this abfurd opinion was king David's, becaufe in the li pfalm he cries out to God, "Against thee only have I finned;" as if David had imagined, that to murder Uriah and adulterate his wife had been no fin against his neighbour, whenas that law of Mofes was to the king exprefsly, Deut. xvii, not to think fo highly of himself above his brethren. David therefore by thofe words could mean no other, than either that the depth of his guiltinefs was known to God only, or to fo few as had not the will or power to question him, or that the fin against God was greater beyond compare than against Uriah. Whatever his meaning were, any wife man will fee, that the pathetical words of a pfalm can be no certain decision to a point that hath abundantly more certain rules to go by. How much more rationally spake the Heathen king Demophoön in a tragedy of Euripides, than these interpreters would put upon king David? "I rule not my people by tyranny, as if they were barbarians, but am myfelf liable, if I do unjustly, to fuffer juftly." Not unlike was the fpeech of Trajan the worthy emperor, to one whom he made general of his prætorian forces: "Take this drawn fword," faith he, "to ufe for me, if I reign well; if not, to ufe against me." Thus Dion relates. And not Trajan only, but Theodofius the younger, a chriftian emperor, and one of the best, caufed it to be enacted as a rule undeniable and fit to be acknowledged by all kings and emperors, that a prince is bound

to

to the laws; that on the authority of law the authority of a prince depends, and to the laws ought to fubmit. Which edict of his remains yet unrepealed in the Code of Justinian, 1. 1, tit. 24, as a facred conftitution to all the fucceeding emperors. How then can any king in Europe maintain and write himself accountable to none but God, when emperors in their own imperial statutes have written and decreed themfelves accountable to law? And indeed where fuch account is not feared, he that bids a man reign over him above law, may bid as well a favage beaft.

It follows, laftly, that fince the king or magiftrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the firft place, and not his own; then may the people, as oft as they fhall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depofe him though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as feems to them beft. This, though it cannot but ftand with plain reason, shall be made good alfo by Scripture, Deut. xvii, 14. "When thou art come into the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and fhalt say, I will fet a king over me, like as all the nations about Thefe words confirm us that the right of choofing, yea of changing their own government, is by the grant of God himself in the people. And therefore when they defired a king, though then under another form of government, and though their changing displeased him, yet he that was himself their king, and rejected by them, would not be a hinderance to what they intended, further than by persuasion, but that they might do therein as they faw good, 1 Sam. viii, only he referved to himfelf the nomination of who fhould reign over them. Neither did that exempt the king, as if he were to God only accountable, though by his efpecial command anointed. Therefore "David first made a covenant with the elders of Ifrael, and fo was by them anointed king," 2 Sam. v, 3, 1 Chron. xi. And Jehoiada the priest, making Jehoafh king, made a covenant between him and the people, 2 Kings xi, 17. Therefore when Roboam, at his coming to the crown, rejected thofe conditions,

which the Ifraelites brought him, hear what they answer him, "What portion have we in David, or inheritance in the fon of Jeffe? See to thine own houfe David." And for the like conditions not performed, all Ifrael before that time depofed Samuel; not for his own default, but for the mifgovernment of his fons. But fome will fay to both thefe examples, it was evilly done. I anfwer, that not the latter, because it was exprefsly allowed them in the law, to fet up a king if they pleased; and God himfelf joined with them in the work; though in fome fort it was at that time difpleafing to him, in respect of old Samuel, who had governed them uprightly. As Livy praises the Romans, who took occafion from Tarquinius, a wicked prince, to gain their liberty, which to have extorted, faith he, from Numa, or any of the good kings before, had not been seasonable. Nor was it in the former example done unlawfully; for when Roboam had prepared a huge army to reduce the Ifraelites, he was forbidden by the prophet, 1 Kings xii, 24. "Thus faith the Lord, ye fhall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is from me." He calls them their brethren, not rebels, and forbids to be proceeded against them, owning the thing himself, not by fingle providence, but by approbation, and that not only of the act, as in the former example, but of the fit feafon alfo; he had not otherwise forbid to moleft them. And those grave and wife counsellors, whom Rehoboam first advised with, fpake no fuch thing, as our old gray-headed flatterers now are wont, ftand upon your birthright, fcorn to capitulate, you hold of God, not of them; for they knew no fuch matter, unless conditionally, but gave him politic council, as in a civil tranfaction. Therefore kingdom and magiftracy, whether fupreme or fubordinate, is called "a human ordinance," 1 Pet. ii, 13, &c.; which we are there taught is the will of God we fhould fubmit to, fo far as for the punishment of evil doers, and the encouragement of them that do well. "Submit," faith he, "as free men." But to any civil power unaccountable, unquestionable, and not to be refifted, no not in wickedness, and violent actions, how can we fubmit as free men?" "There is no power but of God," faith Paul,

Paul, Rom. xiii, as much as to fay, God put it into man's heart to find out that way at firft for common peace and prefervation, approving the exercife thereof; elfe it contradicts Peter, who calls the fame authority an ordinance of man. It must be alfo understood of lawful and juft power, elfe we read of great power in the affairs and kingdoms of the world permitted to the devil: for faith he to Chrift, Luke iv, 6, all this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, for it is delivered to me, and to whomfoever I will, I give it: neither did he lie, or Chrift gainfay what he affirmed; for in the thirteenth of the Revelation we read how the dragon gave to the beaft his power, his feat, and great authority: which beaft fo authorized moft expound to be the tyrannical powers and kingdoms of the earth. Therefore Saint Paul in the forecited chapter tells us, that fuch magiftrates he means, as are not a terrour to the good, but to the evil, fuch as bear not the fword in vain, but to punish offenders, and to encourage the good. If fuch only be mentioned here as powers to be obeyed, and our fubmiffion to them only required, then doubtlefs thofe powers, that do the contrary, are no powers ordained of God; and by confequence no obligation laid upon us to obey or not to refift them. And it may be well obferved, that both these apostles, whenever they give this precept, exprefs it in terms not concrete, but abftract, as logicians are wont to speak; that is, they mention the ordinance, the power, the authority, before the perfons that execute it; and what that power is, left we should be deceived, they defcribe exactly. So that if the power be not fuch, or the perfon execute not fuch power, neither the one nor the other is of God, but of the devil, and by confequence to be refifted. From this expofition Chryfoftom alfo on the fame place diffents not; explaining that these words were not written in behalf of a tyrant. And this is verified by David, himself a king, and likelieft to be the author of the pfalm xciv, 20, which faith, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" And it were worth the knowing, fince kings in these days, and that by Scripture, boaft the juftness of their title, by holding it immediately of God, yet cannot fhow the time

when

when God ever fet on the throne them or their forefathers, but only when the people chose them; why by the fame reason, fince God afcribes as oft to himself the cafting down of princes from the throne, it should not be thought as lawful, and as much from God when none are feen to do it but the people, and that for just causes. For if it needs must be a fin in them to depofe, it may as likely be a fin to have elected. And contrary, if the people's act in election be pleaded by a king, as the act of God, and the most just title to enthrone him, why may not the people's act of rejection be as well pleaded by the people as the act of God, and the most just reafon to depofe him? So that we fee the title and juft right of reigning or depofing in reference to God, is found in Scripture to be all one; vifible only in the people, and depending merely upon juftice and demerit. Thus far hath been confidered chiefly the power of kings and magiftrates; how it was and is originally the people's, and by them conferred in trust only to be employed to the common peace and benefit; with liberty therefore and right remaining in them, to reaffume it to themselves, if by kings or magistrates it be abused; or to dispose of it by any alteration, as they fhall judge moft conducing to the public good.

We may from hence with more eafe and force of argument determine what a tyrant is, and what the people may do against him. A tyrant, whether by wrong or by right coming to the crown, is he who, regarding neither law nor the common good, reigns only for himself and his faction: thus St. Bafil among others defines him. And because his power is great, his will boundless and exorbitant, the fulfilling whereof is for the most part accompanied with innumerable wrongs and oppreffions of the people, murders, massacres, rapes, adulteries, defolation, and fubverfion of cities and whole provinces; look how great a good and happiness a juft king is, fo great a mischief is a tyrant; as he the public father of his country, fo this the common enemy. Against whom what the people lawfully may do, as against a common peft, and destroyer of mankind, I fuppofe no man of clear judgment need go further to be guided than by the